There is a good number of films that are rightly recognized as great that rely on satire or being a deconstruction. My question, is what happens when these films fall on the wrong people? What originally made me think of this topic is the amount of people who thought Jordan Belfort lived a fulfilling life or thought he was an inspiration (during his debauchery), although this applies to many films that I will mention later.

This question presented itself to me during a discussion about The Wolf of Wall Street I mentioned that I enjoyed the film but my problem was the amount of people who romanticized Belfort. The person who I was discussing this with mentioned that her problem with that idea is that while it is criticizing those people, it's still marketed in a way that drives them to see it.

The obvious counterargument is that the marketing is originally there to bring them in, while the actual film provides an argument against those ways. But, what about the people who miss that? For instance in Wolf there is such a large amount of drugs, comedy, and sex that anyone who just came for those things could enjoy it without touching on the actual condemnation Scorsese was handing down to this behavior. This condemnation was done with an almost absence of Scorsese's own opinion, instead choosing to let the depraved behavior of the characters show how grotesque they are. This absence of argument was done very well and is rightfully receiving praise among people who realized the intention. But it raises a disturbing ability for people to completely miss the point, instead letting the steadicam and flashy editing transport them to a party they eye as "cool". This means that not only is there a misaimed fandom, but that fandom seems to be the one marketing is appealing to.

Another film that suffers from this is American Psycho. I have come across multiple people who think that Patrick Bateman is an idol in all but his murder. They think his choice of clothes, frequent infidelity, working out, and other assorted acts of vanity and consumerism are things to be idolized. This film is a little more blunt in its criticism of the main character's awfulness, but apparently not enough for everyone who sees it to take away the intended message. However, American Psycho at least manages to not market this directly towards people who would think this.

Fight Club is yet another film which suffers from misinterpretation. On almost the completely opposite end of American Psycho, Fight Club usually comes across young, impressionable males that Tyler Durden's persona appeals to. It's almost as though the audiences fall for the same trap as his "Project Mayhem" followers, getting so caught up in the charisma of Brad Pitt and a rule-free life that they fail to see they're being led by a madman who will eventually put as strict of rules on them in order to rebel. Fight Club also had the issue that Wolf of Wall Street did with its marketing. It was shown to be a masculine fighting film, which drew in exactly the type of people who think setting something like that up to escape their own lives is a good idea, something the film directly criticizes.

All in all I believe this is an unavoidable problem in satirical media. While this may be true, that does not mean that we should completely give in and stop talking about it, or - even more drastically - stop making these type of films completely. These deconstructions and satires can show us how people fall in love with these lifestyles and make poignant statements about the dark side of humanity without simply having morally righteous characters contrast the ones without. These films can really say something other types cannot, unless they fall on deaf ears.

How do you feel about this phenomenon? Is it unavoidable? If not, how can it be solved?

I have two films i absolutely love that everyone i show seems to hate,

The first one is Strangers with Candy, a comedy about a 40 something year old prostitute/drug smuggler/crack addict coming out of prison to re-attend high-school. The film is goddamn hilarious, and my friends just don't understand the humour. Also it had Stephen Colbert starring in it and he references it in his latest star-wars skit.

The second one was Hesher. I love the twisted take on Mary Poppins but my friends hated the film because in there eyes Natalie Portman would never be a checkout chick in real life...

So for this I think it would be nice if everyone commenting puts one of their favorite director followed by an exemplary film from them and an explanation of why the film is so great or you can just comment on what you think of directors or films other people have mentioned. I'll start:

Paul Thomas Anderson

The Master (2012): To start things off it's visually amazing. Anderson shows a real Mastery over 70 mm so that it doesn't feel constricting or limiting. The use of colors in this film at some points are also pretty stunning, especially in the intro to the film. The film centers around the relationship of Phoenix's character with Hoffman's and you're seeing two actors who are really at the top of their game, especially in the case of Phoenix. The plot is kind of meandering, similar to There Will Be Blood but with a less concrete arc to it and I think that's why a lot of people have overlooked this film. As a period piece I think there was a lot of attention to detail paid in the sets, especially the department store and photo studio, while there's not a lot of larger sets or shots I was really impressed by what was in the film.

/r/letstalkcinema is a subreddit dedicated to meaningful discussion about everything cinema. Besides the best known type of cinema discussion concerning individual movies and directors, we also discuss important aspects concerning film such as lighting, camera movement, composition, blocking colorization/color correction, scores, etc.